Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @11:05AM
from the you-have-bad-taste-in-film dept.

redletterdave writes about more movies being made available on Youtube's rental service. From the article: "Google announced a new deal with Paramount Pictures on Tuesday, which will make more than 500 movie titles available for rental on YouTube and the new Google Play platform. The deal was made even though Google is still embroiled in a four-year-old legal battle over copyrights with Paramount's parent company, Viacom. The latest deal means Google has rental deals with five of the six major Hollywood studios, including Paramount, Warner Bros., Disney, Universal Pictures, and Sony Pictures. The lone exception is 20th Century Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Google will only make these titles available for rent; the search giant has not yet made a decision to sell any movies it licenses, despite pressure from major Hollywood studios looking to compensate for poor DVD sales."

I can watch *way* more movies and TV shows than that with no hassle on my Xbox and they don't expire or require some annoying separate login, weird PC-only DRM scheme, or any other annoyances. I just pay my $8 a month, click "Netflix" on my Xbox menu, and watch whatever I like.

Farther behind doesn't matter so much if you never bothered to pay attention to release dates to begin with. Netflix is great at fostering that kind of attitude and they have been doing well at it for over 10 years now.

The only content they are "loosing" is perhaps the streaming stuff.

The disk service is still going strong despite a number of factions that want to ignore it.

Yields better features and quality while not subject to network bandwidth issues, caps, or throttling.

Since Netflix streams require Microsoft, I won't even rent the damned disks -- just out of annoyance that I have to have MS to stream. If I want a DVD there's a Family Video half a mile away and movies are a buck or two, and there's no way I'd rent five in a month.

We all know the netflix model is definitely not what the movie industry wants, but so far it is the only viable alternative to piracy I've seen. People will pay because it's easier and legal. If there is one simple truth about humans it's that they are lazy above all other things, including "morality" if you want to call it that. So they can make it watching their movies in a way they disprove of as illegal as they want, but people are always going to chose the easier route. For most people netflix is easie

Google Play rentals on new releases are typically $2-$4 dollars. Blockbuster rentals on new releases have been more than $5 for over a decade. I will fully agree with you that the 24 hour window can be kind of annoying and pointless. If you were going to somehow rip/pirate the rental, the restriction is meaningless since it won't take 24 hours to do so. If you pass out during a movie and are busy the next night, you're just fucked.

Redbox for newer release movies, and Vudu for when I've got to watch it now

I used to do same, then I realized the saving in redbox vs Vudu really was not worth it. If you drive a few miles to nearest red box (back and forth, twice) you probably spent a dollar on gas, for a total price delta of less than $2. And you spent thirty minutes of your life to get this saving.

Indeed you can. I just bought the first 6 STOS movies for $40, that's six and a half bucks each. Paramount Studios. WalMart has all kinds of movies (good ones, too) for five bucks, including Paramount releases.

This must be for people with more dollars than sense, who are too lazy to go to the $1 Redbox kiosk.

Except that in this case your Xbox is the DRM. Furthermore, you're paying for Xbox Live on top of your standard Netflix fee for some reason. I wouldn't be so proud about letting Microsoft double-dip on me like that.

Unplug your kinect and it will stop. My kinect kept picking up stray sounds in the room and doing all of those things. Don't get me wrong I still get the occasional stutter (much worse on my PS3) but overall I'm lovin' it.

And Boo Hoo, an online service doesn't have perpetual rights, however it's legals and it's mostly convenient. Movies, Music, TV, etc will never be free and it shouldn't be. It costs to produce it, so you should pay for it, but the prices they ask are just ridiculous (esp for TV series).

Don't get me wrong I still get the occasional stutter (much worse on my PS3) but overall I'm lovin' it.

What kind of bandwidth do you guys have? I watch my Netflix content through Wii, Roku, PS3 and a Sony IPTV. The only times I get significant stutters or repeated caching screens is either when we are trying to watch on multiple screens (in which case it will usually just give a network failure), or between 9 and 11 at night (in which case I suspect my ISP of throttling). I have basic Time Warner broadband, so ~5-7 Mbps.

I don't on the Xbox. I just click the Netflix button, it takes a few seconds to connect, and there is my queue (I supposed it's logging in transparently in the background, but I never see it). I think when I first set it up, I had to get a number and login to my account to tell Netflix that my Xbox was an allowed streaming device. But now it's a one-click operation. Can't get any simpler than that. I've even taken it with me on trips and used it in hotels and at friends houses, with no hassle.

Again, substitute "home theater PC" for "Xbox" if it makes you feel superior.

again, presumption.
i don't own any console.... i do not have a nerflix subscription, or a hulu subscription, i dont watch movies my pc.
i watch movies on an actual home theater system regardless of my means of acquiring the movie in question... i know.. shocking.. does that make me old fashioned.....??

The digital restrictions management was dictated by Paramount and the other major motion picture studios. So the only way to escape DRM like this in the long run is to find some way to produce and promote an independent film comparable in production quality to those of the major studios. How is this most efficiently done?

And so could Google. Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B, with a turnover of about $15B. Google currently has about $30B in liquid assets. If Google, Apple, and a few other companies got together they could easily provide $10-20B to a fund that would finance freely redistributable films.

Are you describing a hostile takeover? I thought the publicly traded portion of Viacom was a minority stake, and Viacom and CBS were still majority owned by Sumner Redstone [wikipedia.org]. As for Apple, if Apple were to buy any movie studio, it would probably be Disney, due to connections between the companies through the estate of Steve Jobs.

And so could Google. Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B, with a turnover of about $15B. Google currently has about $30B in liquid assets. If Google, Apple, and a few other companies got together they could easily provide $10-20B to a fund that would finance freely redistributable films.

Why would they do this? What's the business model? How are they going to make back their money? You don't expect them to simply throw $10-20B out the window, do you?

Fun fact: The idea that most big-studio fare is garbage led to the creation of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." Quite simply, the main 3 stars said "everything on TV is garbage, we could make a better show with a camcorder and just us 3 cracking jokes."

So they did

And it's awesome.

I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform

I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform

Netflix has. They financed "Lillyhammer" starring Steven Van Zandt (from Sopranos). He play a (surprise) mafioso who goes into witness protection and relocates to Lillyhammer, Norway. I watched the first episode. Not too bad, but it's been a couple weeks and I haven't gone back for more, so it's clear that it's not near the top of my list.

Well then. Addendum to my previous: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc need to pick up the concept AND ADVERTISE IT.
I'm a Netflix subscriber. I watch shows fairly regularly with them... and the first I hear about their exclusive content is on/. ?? Textbook: "doing it wrong"

Ask Darren Bousman. It looks like he just made a great movie funded by himself--The Devil's Carnival. Here is a sample [youtube.com]. I haven't seen the movie yet (they are touring through the country, but no where near me), but it looks at least as good to me as any movie from a major studio.

Google and Paramount are both headquartered in the United States. If you live in (for example) France and want to watch French film, look for a French streaming provider that licenses from French studios.

Google and Paramount are both headquartered in the United States. If you live in (for example) France and want to watch French film, look for a French streaming provider that licenses from French studios.

Supporting local industry is a nice point, but having reflected on my earlier whinge I guess that's not really what I was getting at. It irritates me that these are the international companies who complain incessantly that people are illegally downloading their products without giving a large chunk of the alleged culprits the legitimate alternative. They spend huge amounts of money advertising it and building hype and then won't give us all of the available options for watching it. They've pushed European nations into enacting pretty tough anti-piracy laws and then made deals that won't allow us to use the legitimate supply lines. Your point would be great if Paramount didn't advertise in France, but they do.

The biggest problem is that Paramount US might not own the distribution rights to every Paramount film in France (or Germany, or the UK, etc), those rights might be held by a third party that is not a party to the negotiation. It's a pretty messy industry from a legal perspective so I can understand why they might not get deals done in other markets quite as quickly as for the US.

How about making the DVDs available in a timely fashion? I don't buy many DVDs anymore, but I rent a lot. I often have to wait 6-12 months between a film being in the cinemas or a TV show airing in the USA and it being available to rent. On the other hand, if I wanted to pirate, films are usually available within a few days of cinema release and TV shows within a few hours. If you say 'you can get our product illegally now, or legally in 6-12 months' then you shouldn't be surprised when a lot of people opt for now. Especially when you spend a huge advertising budget on telling them that they want to see it right now...

Releasing DVDs soon after the theatrical release would also be a small boon to theaters. If the DVD were released two-three weeks after the theatrical release, the theaters would likely be still showing it and could put out displays for the DVD copies; if someone liked a movie, they're (probably) far more likely to purchase it immediately after seeing it than after having days/weeks to digest and perhaps lose interest. Supposedly theaters are hurting for cash, necessitating the $5 20oz drink, so even a sm

I proposed something similar a few years ago: Offer a small discount (say, 50% of the ticket price) on the DVD in exchange for your cinema ticket on the way out. I wouldn't be surprised if at least 10% of cinema goers would impulse purchase the DVD. Ideally, you wouldn't delay the DVD launch at all: as soon as the first person walked out of the cinema after the first showing, they'd be able to buy the DVD. I'd have thought that the people who go to the first showing of a movie are the most likely set to

People who love the theater, and will go even if the DVD is available on the day of the premier.People who hate the theater or theater prices, and will not go to the theater even if they have to wait six months.People who would watch at home if available, but will go to the theater instead of waiting.

About this third group of people, some of them will go to the theater, and then buy the DVD. If the DVD is available on release day, or the following Tuesday, more of

I remember VHS, I adopted DVD for videos. I grew up with my parents' records and 8-Tracks, I'm a child a cassettes, and I remember my first CD. I drove my grandparents insane wanting to use my CD player in their corvette. It involved a CD-player to cassette adapter, placed in an cassette to 8-track adapter. I can't remember if I ever got it to work or not, but I remember repeatedly attempting it.

Quickly, everyone! Let us adopt the latest in DRM'd technology so that we may more quickly route our money to overpriced, overcompressed rentals of movies from companies who will then turn that money around and lobby Congress for even more oppressive laws!

i know the kiddies who work at google love the geeky spend life around your computer/smart phone crowd but for most of us we watch this stuff on this huge screen called a TV with other people of blood relation to us.

amazon just released instant video on the PS3 and the x-box will probably be here by the end of the year. why should i even think about google for this?

Look for the jack on the back of your TV labelled VGA. If your TV was made within the last decade or so, it probably has one. That plus a computer made some time in the 21st century is usually enough to get video on a big screen pretty painlessly. My uncle is pretty much a luddite but he managed to set such a system up by himself once Glen Beck left FoxNews and was only available online.

yes, i have nothing better to do than hook up a computer to the TV and let my wife suffer even more with an overkill tool for the job. and why would i want to buy a separate computer to hook up to the TV? why would i move my laptop all the time?

blu ray players, apple tv/roku and game consoles are much better suited for this because for most people their life does not revolve around the computer

This all comes down to whether or not you're willing to eat dirt or not. If you are then by all means stick with an inferior canned solution. Just don't try to pretend it is superior when it is not.

Building an HTPC may be a bother WHEN YOU FIRST SET IT UP. Beyond that, it is superior in every respect to every appliance you've mentioned. While "bothersome", you are in total control of it. That includes enforcing a level of consistency you won't find with a hodgepodge of consumer devices.

BluRay player, Apple TV, Roku, game consoles? I hate to break it to you but those are computers. My interface is a little clunkier but in exchange for that I get a little more flexibility in what I can run.

Besides, if your wife is suffering "even more" with a PC then that means she's suffering to watch shows to begin with. If your family is suffering just to watch TV then it sounds like you're the one whose lives revolve around the computer. If I ever feel "suffering" while just trying to watch a show

blu ray players, apple tv/roku and game consoles are much better suited for this because for most people their life does not revolve around the computer

BluRay players, settop boxes, and game consoles are computers. Don't lose sight of that. They are computers that you don't have much control over, though. The acceptability of that trade-off is up to you.

I have a BluRay player with Netflix built in that I watch some stuff on, but I also watch a lot of stuff on my old laptop hooked to my TV via a cheap VGA

I just pirate all I can. Yes I don't fucking care anymore especially with the media companies trying hard to turn Canada into some lock down DRM utopia. I have aprox 500 dvd's of which half were bought new and rest at pawn shops. I have no intention of giving the studios any money until they stop trying to take away my ownership right off an item and stop trying to get politicians to pass insane laws.

I just pirate all I can. [...] I have no intention of giving the studios any money until they stop trying to take away my ownership right

So how about just not watching the movie? I can completely side with you on not supporting the media companies. They're an unscrupulous and greedy lot. But then you go and download the movie anyway. True, you're not depriving anyone of anything, and I'm not chastising you for pirating; but, when you do that, you completely lose any credence in what appears to be a boycott/protest. Plus, someone out there tracks torrent hits, and that goes to show some sort of interest/consumption on some manager's desk, even if it's not monetary.

It's like saying you are going to protest/boycott the Mars company and then steal a Snickers bar or ask a friend to buy a Snicker's bar for you. Again, it's not about the method of obtaining something, it's about the hypocrisy at hand. You may want to ask yourself just why you do these things, and just how useful your position vs. actions are.

To me, it seems like a weird reverse of the NIMBY crowd--they want cheap, local, 'safe' energy, but not when it takes up their roof or makes noise when it spins or has an extremely low risk of radiation spilling out.

Well its not that easy. First there really isn't any good entertainment content on YouTube unless you're 13 years old and get a laugh out of retards.Gimme some good Sci Fi like http://www.pioneerone.tv/ [pioneerone.tv] (Which I donated twice to) and I'll watch I started my boycott by not going to the movie's and I haven't been to one movie since before Iron Man 2. I just couldn't spend $40-50 between me an my son to watch some shitty movie which I might as well buy a big screen tv and just buy the DVD's at pawnshops.

Why not just boycott movies and spend your money at the local (live) theater? It's 3-D, interactive, surround-sound, and you can often talk to the actors after the show (and sometimes watch a repeat performance with a different take on the characters being played).

I started my movie theater boycott over a decade ago, and haven't missed THAT experience at all. I'll admit I do watch the odd netflix movie to keep myself culturally relevant, but live acting/performance is where it's really at. Gets you out o

I'm not sure this is a fair statement to make. By pirating media you are boycotting the media companies; by not partaking in that media at all, you are boycotting both the media companies and the artists who perform the work. This is not to suggest that you are not hurting the artists by doing either; in both cases, lower revenue will hurt artists as much as the production companies (both directly and indirectly). But a boycott is a concept, and in that sense, the act of pirating media (for the media pirate

I used to try that approach. I didn't want to support the bastards by buying any of their stuff, but at the same time I didn't want pirate as this would give them further ammunition to be even more draconian and relentless. So I just invested in alternative media - legitimately free stuff and purchased stuff direct from the artist(s). Keep in mind I actually LIKE a lot of the stuff that exists from the big studios. Sure they make a lot of crap but they also are respo

I can watch NetFlix on my rooted Android Phone and tablet but not Google video. I would gladly pay to rent movies but the idiots don't want my money. This is stupid in that it drives me to less legitimate sources for my content.

I'm not going to pay $4 - $5 to rent a movie from Google for 48 hours when for $12/month I can have 2 DVD's at a time from Netflix. Their turnaround time is so fast that I can easily get 8 movies in a month. And if I wanted to be less ethical, I could rip them to a hard drive to watch at my leisure. Netflix thought they could coerce me to move entirely to streaming, but their streaming catalog seems to keep getting smaller, so I stlil rely on DVDs.

If movie rentals were $1 - $2 then I might consider it, but why can Redbox rent me a physical disk for less than the studios want for a digital download?

As a MAFIAA member, it is is pretty much a given that Paramount is a short-sighted all-the-market-will-bear robber baron type of company. They have their unregulated monopolies and will stick it to the consumer until the customer dies from loss of blood.

The Hollywood tradition is to screw both the artist and the consumer and the MAFIAA has had a century to perfect their craft.

why can Redbox rent me a physical disk for less than the studios want for a digital download?

because they've got it in their head that they can't possibly trust a third party not to screw with the numbers so they charge a large upfront licensing fee. if all the studios were smart, they'd create a unified rental interface that lets them control their own content directly. of course they'd lose before they began, as they would still try to charge $5/rental or $20+ for ownership, i mean unlimited viewing license, which you could never resell/lend/etc. i'm not sure why they are so stupid, but this if t

The real issue with this thinning of content is that it disrupts society -- people get to the point where not everyone can watch the same content, which means society itself becomes stratified along the lines of the content providers.

It used to be that someone could just sing you the song/tell you the story they heard somewhere else, but with this new method, you get "Oh, there was this funny scene from show X on network Y I saw the other night... it went something like this... but my access expired and it'

Let's just hope that Google has not sold their souls to the great MAFIAA Satan, and that they haven't compromised their stand on Internet freedom to make this deal. I, for one, will be keeping my eyes open for the tell tale (or more obvious, in your face) signs that they are compromised.

hilarious to see them complain "despite pressure from major Hollywood studios looking to compensate for poor DVD sales.", but still refuse to adapt their business model to a reasonable online distribution. $5 for a streaming movie? That is just bad business.

The reason I'm not subscribed to Netflix is that they want me tu use a backdored OS known as Windows so they can control it and enforce completelly redundant DRM (hint, pirates have no problem aquiring sources). If this doesn't require DRM and is usable form Linux I'm ready for it.

if the prices aren't going to be anywhere near the old video days ($1.99-2.99/1-2days for new releases and $0.99/5days for old stuff), why bother? only a retard would rent a movie for $5, unless perhaps, it was within a month of theatrical release.